Foundations of Physics

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 795–838 | Cite as

Founding Quantum Theory on the Basis of Consciousness


In the present work, quantum theory is founded on the framework of consciousness, in contrast to earlier suggestions that consciousness might be understood starting from quantum theory. The notion of streams of consciousness, usually restricted to conscious beings, is extended to the notion of a Universal/Global stream of conscious flow of ordered events. The streams of conscious events which we experience constitute sub-streams of the Universal stream. Our postulated ontological character of consciousness also consists of an operator which acts on a state of potential consciousness to create or modify the likelihoods for later events to occur and become part of the Universal conscious flow. A generalized process of measurement-perception is introduced, where the operation of consciousness brings into existence, from a state of potentiality, the event in consciousness. This is mathematically represented by (a) an operator acting on the state of potential consciousness before an actual event arises in consciousness and (b) the reflecting of the result of this operation back onto the state of potential consciousness for comparison in order for the event to arise in consciousness. Beginning from our postulated ontology that consciousness is primary and from the most elementary conscious contents, such as perception of periodic change and motion, quantum theory follows naturally as the description of the conscious experience.


consciousness quantum theory measurement EPR paradox 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wheeler J.A., Zurek W.H. (1983). Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Einstein A., Podolsky B., Rosen N. (1935). Phys. Rev 47:777CrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 31, 555 (1935); ibid 32, 446 (1936).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Selleri F., van der Merwe A. (1990). Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht See also references therein.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1934); Atomic Theory and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1958).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (Dover, New York, 1930); Physics and Philosophy, (Harper and Row, NY, 1958).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952); ibid, 85, 180 (1952).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Everett H. III. (1957). Rev. Mod. Phys 29:463CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ballentine L.E. (1970). Rev. Mod. Phys 42:358MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bell J.S., Aspect A. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Merwe A., Selleri F., Tarozzi G. Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism, Eds., Vols I and II (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1988).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. P. Stapp, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003); H. P. Stapp, Found. Phys. 10, 767 (1980).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz J.M., Stapp H.P., Beauregard M. Phil. Trans. R Soc. B 360(1458), 1306 (2005).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Schrödinger, What is Life? And Mind and Matter (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1967). Studying the entire book is strongly recommended and in particular Chap. 3, p. 126 and Chap. 4, p. 139.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schrödinger E. (1954). Nature and the Greeks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. P. Wigner, “Quantum Theory and Measurement,” in J. A. Wheeler, and W. H. Zurek, eds. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983), pp. 260 and 325.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Chap. VI (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955), p. 417.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. London and E. Bauer, “Quantum Theory and Measurement,” in J. A. Wheeler, and W. H. Zurek, eds. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983), p. 217.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Pauli and C. G. Jung, Atom and the Archetype, Pauli/Jung, Letters, 1932–1958. C. A. Meier, ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989); The Shadows of the Mind (Oxford University Press, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mavromatos N.E., Nanopoulos D.V. (1998). Int. J. Mod. Phys B 12:517CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pöppel E. Trends Cognit Sci. 1:56–61 (1997).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aristotle, Posterior Analytics II 19, 99b28-29: Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781), see translation in English by P. Max Müller (Anchor books, New York, 1966).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Spinoza, Ethics; edited and translated by G. H. R. Parkinson (Oxford University Press, New York, 2000).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whitehead A.N. (1933). Adventures of Ideas. Macmillan, New York, p. 228Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. G. Jung, Psychological Types, p. 567 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1971); C. G. Jung, The Integration of the Personality (Farrar and Rinehart, New York, 1939); C. G. Jung, Psychology of the Unconscious (Dodd, New York, 1916).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The idea of something “potentially existing” was discussed by Aristotle, see, e.g., Physics, 186a1-3. This can be translated as follows: “..., because the one exists in potentia and in actuality.”Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parmenides, On Nature, Pre-Socratic Greek Philosopher, born in 510 B.C. See The Fragments of Parmenides, A. H. Coxon (Assen, Netherlands, 1986). See also Ref. [30].Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parmenides, Presented by Plato, p. 920, Ref. [31].Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Plato, “Collected Dialogs”, eds. E. Hamilton and H. Cairns, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Mayavati memorial edn. (Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, 1965).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krishnamurti J., Bohm D. (1985). The Ending of Time. Gollancz, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    We postulate that the seat of consciousness cannot be matter-energy itself because matter is itself an experience of consciousness; namely the experience of matter is given us posteriori but that which perceives matter, that which has the experience, must be ready for the experience to occur a priori.(24) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    E. Webb, Philosophers of Consciousness, Chapter 2, “B. Lonergan, Consciousness as experience and operation” (University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1988), p. 53.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    The original meaning of the Greek word “phenomenon” is “appearance”, namely, that which appears in consciousness.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    When a sentient being is examined to study “his” consciousness using all presently available instrumentation, the being is turned into an object (See Ref. [14], Chapter 3, “The principle of objectivation”). Subject is the experience of oneself. For example, if we follow the nerve excitation caused by the molecules of a flower which interact with those of his nose we will never “see” or experience the aroma. All we will be able to see is the electromagnetic imprint, the pointer which ultimately the subject experiences. Some people are inclined to think that this is not the final stage, that somehow another part of the brain has looked at this imprint and interpreted it. However, we have already included this, namely, the imprint we are considering is the one produced in the brain after this process, namely, it is the collective neural excitations including the neurons that process all the series of signals and their translations to other signals. See also, Ref. [14], Chapter 6, “The mystery of the sensual qualities”.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, J. Physiol. 148, 574–591 (1959).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hubel D.H. (1995). Eye, Brain, and Vision. Scientific American Library Series, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eccles J.C. (1994). How the Self Controls its Brain. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rieke F., Baylor D.A. (1998). Rev. Mod. Phys 70:1027CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yau K.-W., Baylor D.A. (1989). Ann. Rev. Neurosci 12:289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    A. K. Engel, P. Konig, A. K. Kreiter, T. B. Schillen, and W. Singer, Trends Neurosci. 15, 218 (1992); C. M. Gray, J. Comput. Neurosci. 1, 11 (1994); P. Fries, J.-H Schöder, P. R. Roelfsema, W. Singer, and A. K. Engerl, J. Neurosci. 22, 3739 (2002).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Baker C.L. Jr., Cynader M.S. (1986). J. Neurophysiol 55(6):1136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982); ibid, 47, 460 (1981); A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    D. Bouwmeester et al., Nature 390, 575 (1997). D. Boschi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(6), 1121–1125 (1998); I. Marcikic et al., Nature 421, 509 (2003); M. Riebe et al., Nature 429, 734 (2004); M. D. Barrett et al., Nature 429, 737 (2004).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bohm D. (1979). Quantum Mechanics. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeU.S.A
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUniversity of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations